Agree with lurker. Every monument has to pass or fail based on it's own history and use. Geometry has very little to do with it. My opinion is that where we got of track thanks to Walt and others is the practice that the only solution when there is conflict is to set a new monument. Use be damned, particularly if road ROW or a section line is involved. Then some of us decided that was not a good solution and now we pretend to set a new monument. The real solution is to leave one monument in the field and on the record when there is but one corner. Yes it takes extra time and effort by communicating and working with all the owners and there may be times when we are not successful in completing a survey. I don't expect the real solution to be widely practiced in my lifetime. We've been talking about it for how many decades and still the pin cushions are just as prevalent as ever.
The default is to hold the monument (physical, not virtual).
There needs to be a very good reason to reject one.
Small little discrepancies aren't it.
Mighty Moe said it best and with a laudable succinctness. Here's my longwinded opinion:
This speaks more to the art of surveying than any one set of standards. My guiding principle is to do everything within ethical limits to leave my clients and their neighbors in a better position than before they met me. Currently, I don’t find the argument for keeping the line geometrically pristine (straight) to be convincing when property owners abutting said line have constructed improvements based on the positions of honestly set, and long existing, monuments. I just can't bring myself to ignore a monument, so I make a crooked line. Some surveyors use the half foot rule: if it’s within a half-foot of the line it’ll be shown on the plat as being on the line.
The counter argument to the crooked line approach is the seemingly odd notion that the burden is on the large parcel owner to get a survey every nineteen years or so to ward off encroachments that could ripen to adverse possession. That doesn’t feel right, since it hints that a dishonest adjoiner might be rewarded if they move their lot corners five feet into their neighbor’s parcel. Most adverse possession claimants I’ve dealt with were not individuals I would invite to dinner. However, I will hold the tangible monuments over perceptions of fairness and geometrical conformity because, even though I don’t really like it, I can’t put together a rational argument against the centuries old principle that any owner of property has an inherent responsibility to defend it, the mentally ill and minors excluded.
This issue is my answer to the PLS who convinces himself that precise measurements, typically meaning more than double the minimum 1:10000 standard, are superfluous in relation to the average boundary survey. I prefer keeping my gear and measurements tight, running everything through least squares, and having the monuments with my name on them set precisely on the long straight line so the next guy can avoid these discussions.
I actually had a discussion with a surveyor who said that since the standard rule from the board was a 1:5000 minimum accuracy standard for rural surveys then he would reject anything over that tolerance. He also would claim that the "King gets his" rule is a hard immutable rule.
Fortunately, I was mentored differently.
I just want to say how much I appreciate everyone's comments on here. I think they won't just help me, but will help someone else who someday reads this.
I can learn to embrace the occasional zig zag when within tolerance, and have more and more been embracing the crooked right of way.
The frequent answers you get when you ask these questions are along the lines of "It's not about the math", and that has never been my question. My question is priority of title and different monuments, and I think the answers provided here were very helpful. Thanks again internet people!
Heck, even the BLM has placed more emphasis on the idea of senior lines deferring to junior monuments.
I am running a line. I find a series of line stakes shown on the plat. Each of the stakes is 0.1' to 0.2' feet within being on my calculated line.
1. Do I simply show the line stakes with no calls for distance off line and show the line as straight between corners (the "close enough" theory)?
2. Do I create a series of angle points in my surveyed line?
3. Do I show the line as straight and then call out the "misses"?
I have seen respected and good surveyors do all three. I have seen the same one do all three on different surveys. I have seen variations on the same survey (original vs marks with no provenance).
Regarding 1, this probably represents the intention and will work out in practice to be like all the rest, on the ground. It may confuse surveyors that follow, and they may think that the points were disturbed between their work and yours.
Regarding 2, IF all the marks have the preponderance of evidence that they are original and undisturbed monuments from the division of land, then this is probably "correct". Chances are you will need local knowledge and experience with the original surveyor to make the call.
Regarding 3, surveyors following will be able to determine if they have the same measurements, the line will be straight, but will confuse anyone that looks closely..."so where are you saying the line is?"
What I care about the MOST is that no matter what decisions the surveyor makes that they include a NARRATIVE that describes what and why and how they did what they did and the conclusions they came to. I can follow any of those methods, as long as they make it clear what they are doing and what they meant.
1. "The line goes through the monument, as shown graphically. Misses are from calculated positions, but the monuments hold. The differences are show to assist following surveyors to retrace my work."
2. "I found all the original corners and they are consistent in type and accuracy with the 1000 other corners I have found from that surveyor, and I held them. This creates angle points."
3. "I ran the line, and found line stakes that appear to be original. As they meandered 0.1' to 0.2' from the true line between the found corners, I held the line between corners. The line stakes are consistent in nature and accuracy expected at the time, there is no evidence that the surveyor or the grantor intended to create angle points in the sideline of this property, in addition improvements along the line may have disturbed the line stakes."
Alternative: "Did not hold line stakes. The original surveyor holds a reputation for setting marks with extreme accuracy and care. Rather than the surveyor setting line stakes up to 0.2' from the true line, it is likely that the line stakes were disturbed by observed improvements along the line."
You can disagree with any of these, but at least you know what they did.
One thing is to keep in mind is that the entire monument is the corner. The corner is not some infinitesimal fly speck on the apparent center of the top of the monument. Bearings and distances get you to the MONUMENT. If they, get you there, great. If they, don't something is very, very wrong.
One thing is to keep in mind is that the entire monument is the corner.
Times like this I miss McMillimeter and his punch marks.
😉
One thing is to keep in mind is that the entire monument is the corner.
I don't think I agree with that. While I wouldn't say it's some infinitely small speck, it's certainly less than a 6x6" post. Maybe landowners in your area aren't so picky about their boundaries, but around here if I tried rolling in and saying yeah you're boundary is +-6 inches from my pin I can almost guarantee I'd be catching hell for that.
This is the mindset that has ruined the surveying profession. Monuments are the true corners. The only need for bearings and distances is to get you to the monument. We have lost alot of our Texas cohorts who know the monument is the corner and they so state in their field notes which are really an entirely new description of the boundary based on what was observed in the field.
Monuments are placed for one reason. To provide VISIBLE proof of property corners to all comers for as long as the monument is not destroyed.
This fixation on flyspecks must go away.
This is the mindset that has ruined the surveying profession. Monuments are the true corners.
No, what ruins the profession is the ridiculous idea that that scope is not even a thing that would or should be considered. Maybe I should move down to Arizona and call the Grand Canyon my property corner. What could go wrong?
This unfortunately is becoming the norm. I went out and flagged and found a bunch of corners monuments. Pipes rebar stones even a tree. Chopped called for and everything. Well I was not the one measuring them. But the person in charge as I was looking computed points to be set at the tree aka natural monument. A nice rebar set which took a crew a bit as it was landing in a spot that was difficult to drive in. A 36” oak located by offset method to center did not match a stone that was odd shaped but about 8” x 8” in the big scheme of things located obviously by a crew chief to his best ability to depict the center of that stone undisturbed. And that stone did not match a 1 1/2” pinched top pipe by whatever. When it was all said and done the deed plat was placed on the ground so all new distance and bearings matched the deed.
I do not understand this train of thought whatsoever and I am not licensed but these very things have made me pause to get licensed or take the last exam because I figured I must have been taught wrong in the 90’s when I was surveying before. I believe we have become so good at measuring or some believe they have that the guy who was yanking a chain and using a transit just was not good enough.
When original corners are found undisturbed I was always taught that was without error. Hold them hang your hat on them. They are what they are. I was taught that the math to set a missing corner should be the last resort period what other evidence is already agreed upon. Maybe an old fence a hedge row. The plowed or agricultural land vs the neighbor who just mowed his grass They both have accepted that for many years if they are happy why change that to some math magical position.
Have you ever set a lot corner in a subdivision and when you drove by the next day observe that it was in a different location? It had been moved approximately 5 feet and it wasn’t nature that moved it. Not all property owners are honest and I would have never known if I hadn’t set it myself. I learned a long time ago that it’s important to be able to read the person you’re talking with.
The days of property owners knowing their bounds are rapidly fading into the past. Without reliance has the corner set been accepted? I try to avoid showing angle points in the parent tract line. The legal principles may not have changed but the actions of the owners certainly have.
